It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Possible reason why there are no good photos of Bigfoot.

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 02:16 AM
Everyone is going around assuming that Bigfoot can see in the same visible spectrum as we can and their eyes have the same biology. What if they can see into the infrared and maybe into the ultraviolet. What that means is that our IR game cameras are like searchlights in the night - floodlighting the area in which we want to capture them on camera. A being which is possibly not of the same makeup as we are may not have the same physiology. Their ancestors may have taken an evolutionary different path to ours or they may even come from a different place.

If you wanted to remain undetected, would you go into such a floodlit area and have your picture taken?

Nowadays there are camera modules which can take images in very low light - down to 1/10th of a lux or below I believe so why not use this kind of camera to capture bigfoot. That amount of light is probably moonlight or less. Even though the image would be grainy it would provide more proof that he is out there without having to kill one.

+7 more 
posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 02:23 AM
i think he can avoid detection mainly because he doesn't exist. so there is no real danger in killing one.
But since it's Halloween and anything is possible, if he's out there, i don't think the camera type would really help, i mean aside form a few videos or pictures here and there, biggie has managed to elude satellite pictures and also those bigfoot hunter people on the discovery channel...there must be a bigfoot version of Master Splinter, teaching the art of invisibility to all the fellow bigfoots out there

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 02:26 AM
a reply to: qmantoo

Or another reason why there are virtually no quality images and films of bigfoot, may be that there simply isn't a bigfoot.

Enough time has gone by, over a century i believe, where hunters, fame seekers and adventurers have been searching for the elusive proof of these hypothetical creatures, without success or any real photographic evidence or proof.

That tells me that there probably isn't any such things wandering around the forests and remote areas on this planet, and most reports are hoaxes, mistaken id, overactive imaginations etc...or else we'd have concrete proof by now, and we don't.

We're talking about a very large, supposedly brutish wild creature with a level of sophistication likened to what we'd imagine a Neanderthal would have, we're not talking about a high technology creature able to cloak itself, transport itself using tech, or anything like that...if they were there, IMO, we ought to have discovered absolute proof by now.

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 03:07 AM
I'm just pointing out that new species are found year after year, still. Something new will probably be discovered next week.

I'm not saying Bigfoot exists or does not exist. Just saying that there is a lot of stuff still to be discovered on our planet. It will probably never end.

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 03:27 AM
a reply to: mcx1942
while that is true, the chances of something big still to be discovered on land, are veeeeeery slim.
i wouldn't be surprised if we discover a new huge whale or something, i mean the megamouth shark is an example, the sea might be full of big guys we haven't seen yet.
But on land? the possibility of something so big, that primarily lives at ground level, never being spotted in what, almost 100 years since the original footage?

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 04:17 AM
a reply to: mcx1942

That's true, many new species are discovered by science each year.

The difference though, is these new species are often closely related to existing and known species.

Occasionally, a completely new species will be discovered, but this is rare.

More often than not, the 'new species' is just a variation of a known species, differing only in specific attributes like colour, markings, or size etc...while still being very close in physiology and appearance to other genus of species.

With Bigfoot, there really is no close analogue that could have been easily overlooked, as would be the case with say a newt, that's only different from other newts in a small and superficial way, like slight colour variation or something like that...a bigfoot may be likened to a great ape, or gorilla but considering there are no great apes in the US outside of zoos, it's not like a bigfoot will have been missed by science just because it's slightly different from a Silverback or Orang-utan..there's nothing else like the description of a bigfoot out there, for it to be overlooked by thinking it was an ape for example.

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 04:18 AM
Hope the new show "Killing Bigfoot" works out for them (clue: there is more than one episode).
(Not) Killing Bigfoot

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 04:22 AM
a reply to: qmantoo

Here is the information you seek.

If you want to know why we have no good bigfoot photos.

Here we go.....

Because they..don't want to be recorded.

I guess it will take another 100 years for you blokes to figure out these hairy creatures have brains.

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 04:40 AM
My guess is that Bigfoot is really a shadow person, from another dimension, that is not visible to cameras

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 05:55 AM
a reply to: ExSmokerYes

for your claim to have validity - you would have to establish that :

1 - bigfoot exists

2 - bigfoot knows what a camera is

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 06:10 AM
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Not to mention have a bigfoot sized plasmonic screen for them to hide in, or be able to bend light away from a camera lens by telepathy.

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 07:02 AM
a reply to: qmantoo

It's an idea. However we have a whole range of animals and some of them are nocturnal too. They can see in wider spectra than we can and still they miss the trail-cams. Although I can't think of the natural selection drivers for seeing outside of the visible spectrum, it still wouldn't explain how (presumably breeding) populations are so profoundly evasive.

They avoid natural disasters, car accidents, falling trees, illness, bacterial infections and 100s of 'hunters.' Wild chimps get tooth decay and flu tears through populations. Whatever 'squatch may be, it isn't gonna be a flesh n blood country cousin of ours.

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 07:18 AM
20 tabs open...wrong thread
edit on 31-10-2014 by CardiffGiant because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 07:24 AM
a reply to: CardiffGiant

Turf wars between Sikh kids and squatch? When will the insanity end?

...or wrong thread perhaps?

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 07:33 AM
If you do the research, you almost have to come away with the belief that bigfoot exists. I'm a skeptic by nature, but
I'm convinced bigfoot is out there.
Biologists and zoologists have gone to remote locales and captured photos of the rarest creatures on Earth by using
trail cams placed on game trails and such. Why no pics of bigfoot? Researchers have placed trail cams all over
bigfoot hotspots in Washington, California, Oregon and Colorado. No photos. If he was just an as-yet undiscovered ape, as some claim, he could not be that elusive.

As crazy as it sounds, I'm forced to entertain the idea that bigfoot has a supernatural component going for him.
Many native Americans talk about it like it's common knowledge. Even weirder is that people who have encounters
report that bigfoot emits a horrible stench. What the hell?

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 07:34 AM
a reply to: qmantoo

Yes I would agree with you. In photo's using the purple filter ( ultraviolet?) figures are seen the clearest. Going by reports where people have gotten video's of BF using thermal imaging even at night the BF stick to cover. Given this I would assume they see quite well at night and assume we humans do as well.

Far as I can tell you're correct that people need to get off the idea that they both don't exist and are dumb animals.
It's 2014 and that's sheer 1800's mindset. I'm not sure if I'd call it white privilege, but it's definitely arrogant and a non-starter.

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 10:22 AM
Maybe Mitch Hedberg was right.

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 10:26 AM
a reply to: qmantoo

Neat theory. I was reading through some posts on another site and one detailed an encounter where his dad communicated with a big foot and it told him they travelled using the trees. It did not give any more information but my thoughts were along the lines of teleportation. I'm sure he meant swinging through the branches like monkeys though.

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 11:46 AM

originally posted by: IShotMyLastMuse
a reply to: mcx1942
But on land? the possibility of something so big, that primarily lives at ground level, never being spotted in what, almost 100 years since the original footage?

I wasn't going to post, but now I feel the need to. Every time I see a bigfoot thread, I see people come in and say "there's no evidence, nobody sees them, etc etc".
You're wrong. Many people see them every year. There are tons and tons of documented sightings and encounters, let alone the ones that go unreported. There are alot of pictures and videos as well... And again, these are just the ones that are shared publicly.

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 11:50 AM
How can it be so elusive? A keen sense of smell. Perhaps it won't go near game cameras because of the human smell on them.

If someone is going to get footage I believe they'll have to go miles and miles into the mountains and live there for a few months and eventually loose any fragrance scents on their clothes and bodies.
Don't try and call them with hoots or wood knocks because this is a warning to most apes not an invite.
Someone will have to go completely native and be as quite as possible. This means no fires at night also and no cooked meals to let them know your around.

Other than that getting a picture will be pure happenstance.

Back in 2005, I'm thinking it was, they captured the first video evidence of the Bilbi Ape. A 200 pound 6 ft ape that was previously only a local legend. So yeah Bigfoot could be out there.
edit on 31-10-2014 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in